Well Brent, this simple summary was intended to serve as a basis for elaboration, if needed.  Something others could use as a platform to "get the ball (words!) rolling".  The sections in parentheses are where the author can select the appropriate word/s, and provide a quick "read" for a physician to read as a "summary".  As far as a basis for my determinations regarding function, they are always based upon the testing-that is why they come to us.  Being a sample that is open to the selection of appropriate words, no determination regarding "undue risk of harm or injury if he were to resume this job" has been determined in this sample.  What is undue risk of harm?  In the eyes of whom?  Do people that are physically capable of performing a job get injuries or are they subject to harm (accidents?) in some/any workplace?  Those are very good questions, and somthing that is a very complex question to answer-and probably outside of the scope of most FCE's.  Services such as risk analysis, ergonomic evaluations and a review of incident history with an employer would be a better place to begin-as an FCE is typically used to see if an evaluee meets, or does not meet the physical demands of a job.  In addition, I have never had a referral source ask about "undue risk of harm".  If I am able to identify factors from an evaluation or medical conditions in the records that would pose a threat to someone safely performing at the evaluated level(s); seizure disorders, MS, poorly controlled diabetes, psychological disorders, poor worker traits, etc., I would clearly identify those in the report.

Having said that this is a "quick read" for a physician, more detailed information about the job match, and my RECOMENDATIONS for restrictions, would follow as appropriate under the recommendations portion of the summary and report.  Canada is a very different system for a return to work for injured workers.  A fundamental difference may be that I always have a clear diagnosis (why else evaluate?), and that physicians and other referral sources WANT recommendations for restrictions, as appropriate.  Hope this helps!

So, in this summary statement, are you saying that the worker would be at undue risk of harm or injury if he were to perform this job? What sort of things would you base this on? Our compensation system is very particular on these things (as it helps in the disability awards, pension arena). I tend to avoid the word "restrictions" and leave that to their physicians, unless the diagnosis is quite clear. I'd love it if you had more literature on this topic for review!

thoughts?